CHAPTER 5

Roads to Revolution, 1750–1776

n the evening of March 5, 1770, an angry crowd of poor and working-class OBostonians gathered in front of the guard post outside the Boston cus- toms house. The crowd was protesting a British soldier’s abusive treatment a few hours earlier of a Boston apprentice who was trying to collect a debt from a British officer. Suddenly, shots rang out. When the smoke had cleared, four Bostonians lay dead, and seven more were wounded, one mortally. Among those in the crowd was an impoverished twenty-eight-year- old shoemaker named George Robert Twelves Hewes. Hewes had already witnessed, and once experienced, abuses by British troops, but the appalling violence of the “,” as the shooting became known, led Hewes to political activism. Four of the five who died were personal friends, and he himself received a serious blow to the shoulder from a soldier’s rifle butt. Over the next several days, Hewes attended meetings and signed peti- tions denouncing British conduct in the shooting, and he later testified against the soldiers. Thereafter he participated prominently in such anti- CHAPTER OUTLINE British actions as the . The Triumph of the British Empire, How was it that four thousand British troops were stationed on the 1750–1763 streets of Boston—a city of sixteen thousand—in 1770? What had brought those troops and the city’s residents to the verge of war? What led obscure, Imperial Revenues and Reorganization, humble people like George Robert Twelves Hewes to become angry political 1760–1766 Resistance Resumes, 1766–1770

The Deepening Crisis, 1770–1774

Toward Independence, 1774–1776

123 124 CHAPTER 5 Roads to Revolution, 1750–1776

activists in an age when the lowborn were expected to language and ideas of urban radicals when resisting defer to their social superiors? The Boston Massacre was large landowners and distant colonial governments one of a long chain of events that finally resulted in the dominated by seaboard elites. These movements reflect- complete rupture of Britain’s relationship with its ed social-economic tensions within the colonies as well American colonies. as the growing defiance of elites by ordinary colonists. The conflict between Britain and the colonies erupt- By the same token, the growing participation of white ed after 1763, when Parliament attempted to reorganize women in colonial resistance reflected their impatience its suddenly enlarged empire by tightening control over with the restraints imposed by traditional gender norms. economic and political affairs in the colonies. Long Nonwhite African-Americans and Native Americans had accustomed to benefiting economically from the empire varying views, but many in each group perceived the while conducting provincial and local affairs on their colonists as greater threats to their liberty than Britain. own (see Technology and Culture), colonists were Moreover, colonial protests did not arise in a vacuum shocked by this unexpected effort to centralize decision but rather drew from ideas and opposition movements making in London. Many colonial leaders, such as in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. , interpreted Britain’s clampdown as Taken as a whole, colonial resistance involved many calculated antagonism intended to deprive the colonists kinds of people with many outlooks. It arose most of their prosperity and their relative independence. immediately from a constitutional crisis within the Others, such as Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor and British Empire, but it also reflected deep democratic stir- Chief Justice Thomas Hutchinson, stressed the impor- rings in America and in the Atlantic world generally. tance of maintaining order and authority. These stirrings would erupt in the For many ordinary colonists like Hewes, however, in 1776, then in the French Revolution in 1789, and sub- the conflict was more than a constitutional crisis. In the sequently spread over much of Europe and the port cities, crowds of poor and working people engaged Americas. in direct, often violent demonstrations against British Most colonists expressed their opposition peaceful- authority. Sometimes they acted in concert with elite ly before 1775, through such tactics as legislative resolu- radicals, and other times in defiance of them. Settlers in tions and commercial boycotts, and did not foresee the the remote backcountry of several colonies invoked the revolutionary outcome of their protests. Despite erup- tions of violence, relatively few Anglo-Americans and no royal officials or soldiers lost their lives during the twelve years prior to the battles at Lexington and Concord. Even after fighting broke out, some colonists agonized for more than a year about whether to sever their politi- cal relationship with England, which even native-born colonists sometimes referred to affectionately as “home.” Anglo-Americans were the most reluctant of revolutionaries in 1776.

This chapter focuses on four major questions: ■ How and why did their joint triumph in the Seven Years’ War lead to a rupture between Britain and its American colonies? ■ Why did differences between British officials and colonists over revenue-raising measures lead to a more fundamental conflict over political authority within the colonies? ■ How did the imperial crisis lead non-elite colonists to become politically active? ■ What were the major factors leading most colonists to abandon their loyalty to Britain and instead choose national independence? The Triumph of the British Empire, 1750–1763 125

THE TRIUMPH of taxation, even to fellow Americans and in the face of grave mutual danger. OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE, 1750–1763 The Seven Years’ War King George’s War (see Chapter 4) did nothing to avert a in America, 1754–1760 showdown between Britain and France. After a “diplo- Although France and Britain remained at peace in matic revolution” in which Austria shifted its allegiance Europe until 1756, Washington’s 1754 clash with French from Britain to France, Britain aligned with Prussia, and troops created a virtual state of war in North America. In the conflict resumed. Known as the Seven Years’ War response, the British dispatched General Edward (1756–1763), it would constitute a major turning point in Braddock and a thousand regular troops to North American as well as European history. America to seize Fort Duquesne at the headwaters of the Ohio. A Fragile Peace, 1750–1754 Stiff-necked and scornful of both colonial soldiers and Native Americans, Braddock expected his disci- King George’s War failed to establish either Britain or plined British regulars to make short work of the enemy. France as the dominant power in North America, and On July 9, 1755, about 850 French, Canadians, and each side soon began preparations for another war. Indians ambushed Braddock’s force of 2,200 Britons and Although there were many points of contention between Virginians nine miles east of Fort Duquesne. Riddled by the two powers, the Ohio valley became the tinderbox three hours of steady fire from an unseen foe, Braddock’s for conflict. The valley was the subject of competing claims by Virginia, Pennsylvania, France, and the Six Nations Iroquois, as well as by the Native Americans who actually lived there. Seeking to drive traders from Virginia and Pennsylvania out of the Ohio valley, the French began building a chain of forts there in 1753. Virginia retaliated by sending a twenty-one-year-old surveyor and specula- tor, , to persuade or force the French to leave. But in 1754 French troops drove Washington and his militiamen back to their homes. Sensing the need to resolve differences among themselves and to restore Native Americans’ confidence in the British, delegates from seven colonies north of Virginia gathered at Albany, New York, in mid-1754 to lay plans for mutual defense. By showering the wavering Iroquois with thirty wagonloads of presents, the colonists kept them neutral for the moment. (But virtu- ally all Indians in Ohio itself now supported the French.) The delegates then endorsed a proposal for a colonial confederation, the so-called Albany Plan of Union, largely based on the ideas of Pennsylvania’s Franklin and Massachusetts’s Thomas Hutchinson. The plan called for a Grand Council representing all the colonial assem- blies, with a crown-appointed president general as its executive officer. The Grand Council would devise poli- cies regarding military defense and Indian affairs, and, if necessary, it could demand funds from the colonies according to an agreed-upon formula. Although it pro- vided a precedent for later American unity, the Albany Plan came to nothing, primarily because no colonial leg- islature would surrender the least control over its powers 126 CHAPTER 5 Roads to Revolution, 1750–1776

0 200 Miles

W 0 200 Kilometers olf e 1 759

Gulf of St. Lawrence

N E W F R A N C E Louisbourg

Fort Gaspereau Quebec R. A Fort Beausejour e I nc D re A A w I a St. François C T L A O

. C t s

S r S e Halifax Montreal g A n MAINE V 9 a 5 R (MASS.) O 7 7 ’ N 5 1 s 7 r 1 e 5 g 5 o m 7 l R 0 1 6 a 7 c 1 t 5 t u 5 rs a n 7 he k o 1 British territory m s Fort Crown Point

A M ls

e

i a Fort Ticonderoga ni D o ol Montcalm Fort William Henry C French territory L. Ontario 1756 Lake George 58 17 Fort Oswego Co N.H. t lo s Fort Niagara . n r C i e

R a h Disputed claims o 59 A ls m 17 l

n m P ux o A

ridea 1 MASS. Boston o

n h 7

s i 5

e d a 5

NEW YORK l r

u s le s British forces

Is t H ’ Iroquois Indians 1

u 1 q 7

s (neutral) 7

rie re 5 E P 5

. t 5 CONN. L For 9 French forces Fort Le Boeuf R.I.

Fort Machault de Villiers British fort 1754 PENNSYLVANIA New York Fort Duquesne Allegheny R. N.J. French fort Fo rbes R. 1757 o A T L A N T I C i Philadelphia h Braddock British victory O 1755 Fort Necessity MD. O C E A N French victory Washington 1754 Monongahela R. DEL. NOTE: New France’s boundary VIRGINIA with Maine, New Hampshire, and New York was uncertain.

MAP 5.1 The Seven Years’ War in America After experiencing major defeats early in the war, Anglo-American forces turned the tide against the French by taking Fort Duquesne in late 1757 and Louisbourg in 1758. After Canada fell in 1760, the fighting shifted to Spain’s Caribbean colonies.

troops retreated. Nine hundred regular and provincial in 1756 and took Fort William Henry on Lake George in soldiers died in Braddock’s defeat, including the general 1757. The French now threatened central New York and himself, compared to just twenty-three on the French western New England. In Europe, too, the war began and Indian side. badly for Britain, which by 1757 seemed to be facing As British colonists absorbed the shock of defeat on all fronts (see Map 5.1). Braddock’s disastrous loss, French-armed Shawnees, In this dark hour, two developments turned the tide Delawares, and Mingos from the upper Ohio valley for the British. First, the Iroquois and most Ohio Indians, struck hard at encroaching settlers in western sensing that the French were gaining too decisive an Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. For three years, advantage, agreed at a treaty conference at Easton, these attacks halted English expansion and prevented Pennsylvania, in 1758 to abandon their support of the the three colonies from joining the British war against French. Their subsequent withdrawal from Fort France. Duquesne enabled the British to capture it and other Confronted by the numerically superior but disor- French forts. Although some Native Americans with- ganized Anglo-Americans, the French and their Native drew from the fighting, others actively joined Britain’s American allies captured Fort Oswego on Lake Ontario cause. The Triumph of the British Empire, 1750–1763 127

The second decisive development occurred when In September 1759 Quebec fell after General James William Pitt took control of military affairs in the British Wolfe defeated the French commander-in-chief, Louis cabinet and reversed the downward course. Imaginative Joseph Montcalm, on the Plains of Abraham, where both and single-minded in his conception of Britain’s imperi- commanders died in battle. French resistance ended in al destiny, Pitt saw himself as the man of the hour. “I 1760 when Montreal surrendered. know,” he declared, “that I can save this country and that no one else can.” True to his word, Pitt reinvigorated The End of French North America, British patriotism throughout the empire. By the war’s 1760–1763 end, he was the colonists’ most popular hero, the sym- bol of what Americans and the English could accom- Although the fall of Montreal effectively dashed its plish when united. hopes in North America, the war continued in Europe Hard-pressed in Europe by France and its allies and elsewhere, and France made one last desperate (which included Spain after 1761), Pitt chose not to send attempt to capture Newfoundland in June 1762. large numbers of additional troops to America. He Thereafter, with defeat inevitable, France entered into believed that the key to crushing New France lay in the negotiations with its enemies. The Seven Years’ War offi- mobilization of colonial soldiers. To encourage the cially ended in both America and Europe with the sign- colonies to assume the military burden, he promised ing of the in 1763. that if they raised the necessary men, Parliament would Under terms of the treaty, France gave up all its bear most of the cost of fighting the war. lands and claims east of the Mississippi (except New Pitt’s offer to free Anglo-Americans from the war’s Orleans) to Britain. In return for Cuba, which a British financial burdens generated unprecedented support. expedition had seized in 1762, Spain ceded Florida to The colonies organized more than forty thousand troops Britain. Neither France nor Britain wanted the other to in 1758–1759, far more soldiers than the crown sent to control Louisiana, so in the Treaty of San Ildefonso the mainland during the entire war. (1762), France ceded the vast territory to Spain. Thus The impact of Pitt’s decision was immediate. Anglo- France’s once mighty North American empire was American troops under General Jeffery Amherst cap- reduced to a few tiny fishing islands off Newfoundland tured Fort Duquesne and Louisbourg by late 1758 and and several thriving sugar islands in the West Indies. drove the French from northern New York the next year. Britain reigned supreme in eastern North America 128 CHAPTER 5 Roads to Revolution, 1750–1776

while Spain now claimed the west below Canada (see burned their villages. Almost 5 percent of Canada’s pop- Map 5.2). ulation was forcibly deported in this way to the British Several thousand French colonists in an area colonies, especially Maryland and Pennsylvania. But stretching from Quebec to Illinois to Louisiana were facing poverty and intense anti-French, anti-Catholic suddenly British and Spanish subjects. The most prejudice, most Acadians moved on to Louisiana. There adversely affected Franco-Americans were the Acadians, they became known as Cajuns. who had been nominal British subjects since England King George’s War and the Seven Years’ War pro- took over Acadia in 1713 and renamed it . At duced an ironically mixed effect. On one hand, they the war’s outbreak, Nova Scotia’s government ordered all fused the bonds between the British and the Anglo- Acadians to swear loyalty to Britain and not to bear arms Americans. Fighting side by side, shedding their blood in for France. After most refused to take the oath, British common cause, the British and the American colonists soldiers drove them from their homes—often with noth- came to rely on each other as rarely before. But the con- ing more than they could carry in their arms—and clusion of each war planted the seeds first of misunder- standing, then of suspicion, and finally of hostility between the two former compatriots. MAP 5.2 European Powers in North America 1763 The Treaty of Paris (1763) divided France’s North American IMPERIAL REVENUES empire between Britain and Spain. Hoping to prevent AND REORGANIZATION, unnecessary violence between whites and Indians, Britain forbade any new colonial settlements west of the Appalachians’ 1760–1766 crest in the Proclamation of 1763. Even as the Seven Years War wound down, tensions developed in the victorious coalition of Britons, colonists, and Native Americans. Much of the tension originated in British plans to finance its suddenly enlarged empire by means of a series of revenue meas- ures and to enforce these and other measures directly rather than relying on local authorities. Following pas- sage of the Stamp Act, opposition movements arose in the mainland colonies to protest not only the new meas- Hudson ures’ costs but also what many people considered a dan- Bay gerous extension of Parliament’s power.

R The new revenue measures followed the ascension

O C

K to the British throne of George III (ruled 1760–1820) at

Y

M age twenty-two. Although content to reign as a constitu-

O

U . tional monarch who cooperated with Parliament and

N R

i T

p A p worked through prime ministers, the new king was i I N s s S i s is determined to have a strong influence on government M Proclamation line of 1763 policy. However, neither his experience, his tempera- ment, nor his philosophy suited George III to the formi- dable task of building political coalitions and pursuing consistent policies. The king made frequent abrupt British territory changes in government leadership that exacerbated

Danish territory relations with the colonies. The colonists’ protests reflected class and other French territory divisions within Anglo-American society. Most elites,

Spanish territory including members of the assemblies, expressed them- selves in carefully worded arguments based on the Russian territory British constitution and their colonial charters. Artisans,

Title not established businessmen, and some planters used more inflamma- tory language and organized street demonstrations, Imperial Revenues and Reorganization, 1760–1766 129 appealing to the populace rather than to Parliament. Poor and working people in port cities, especially in eco- nomically strapped New England, showed a willingness to defy colonial elites as well as British authorities and even to resort to violence to make their views known.

Friction Among Allies, 1760–1763 An extraordinary coalition of Britons, colonists, and Native Americans had achieved the victory over France in North America. But the return of peace brought deep- seated tensions among these allies back to the surface. During the war, British officers regularly com- plained about the quality of colonial troops, not only their inability to fight but also their tendency to return home—even in the midst of campaigns—when their terms were up or when they were not paid on time. For their part, colonial soldiers complained of British offi- cers who, as one put it, contemptuously treated their troops “but little better than slaves.” Tensions between British officers and colonial civil- ians also flared, with officers complaining about colonists’ unwillingness to provide food and shelter and with colonists resenting the officers’ arrogant manners. One general groused that South Carolina planters were “extremely pleased to have Soldiers to protect their Plantations but will feel no inconveniences for them.” Quakers in the Pennsylvania assembly, acting from paci- fist convictions, refused to vote funds to support the war effort, while assemblies in New York and Massachusetts opposed the quartering of British troops on their soil as an encroachment on their English liberties. English This debt was assumed by British landowners through a authorities regarded such actions as affronts to the land tax and, increasingly, by ordinary consumers king’s prerogative and as stifling Britain’s efforts to through excise duties on a wide variety of items, includ- defend its territories. ing beer, tea, salt, and bread. Pitt’s promise to reimburse the colonial assemblies But many colonists felt equally burdened. Those for their military expenses also angered many Britons, who profited during the war spent their additional who concluded that the colonists were escaping scot- income on goods imported from Britain, the annual free from the war’s financial burden. The colonies had value of which doubled during the war’s brief duration. already profited enormously from the war, as military Thus, the effect of the war was to accelerate the Anglo- contracts and spending by British troops brought an American “consumer revolution” in which colonists’ influx of British currency into the hands of farmers, arti- purchases of British goods fueled Britain’s economy, sans, and merchants. Some colonial merchants, more- particularly its manufacturing sector. But when peace over, had continued their illicit trade with the French returned in 1760, the wartime boom in the colonies West Indies during the conflict, not only violating the ended as abruptly as it had begun. To maintain their life- but also trading with the enemy. styles, many colonists went into debt. British creditors Meanwhile, Britain’s national debt nearly doubled dur- obliged their American merchant customers by extend- ing the war, from £72 million to over £132 million. At a ing the usual period for remitting payments from six time when the total debt of all the colonies collectively months to a year. Nevertheless, many recently prosper- amounted to £2 million, the interest charges alone on ous colonists suddenly found themselves overloaded the British debt came to more than £4 million a year. with debts and, in many cases, bankrupt. As colonial TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Public Sanitation in Philadelphia

ven as the imperial crisis intruded on their lives, Almost from the city’s founding, residents had com- Ecity-dwellers confronted long-standing problems plained about the stench arising from waste and stag- occasioned by rapid growth. The fastest-growing city in nant water left by the tanneries and other large indus- eighteenth-century America was Philadelphia, whose tries. Many attributed the city’s frequent disease population approached seventeen thousand in 1760 (see epidemics to these practices. In 1739 a residents’ peti- Figure 4.2 in Chapter 4). One key to Philadelphia’s rise tion complained of “the great Annoyance arising from the was its location as both a major Atlantic port and the Slaughter-Houses, Tan-yards, . . . etc. erected on the gateway to Pennsylvania’s farmlands and the Ap- publick Dock, and Streets, adjacent.” It called for pro- palachian backcountry. Local geography also con- hibiting new tanneries and for eventually removing exist- tributed to its success. Choosing a site at the confluence ing ones. Such efforts made little headway at first. of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, William Penn had Tanners, brewers, and other manufacturers were among built Philadelphia along a system of streams and the the city’s wealthiest residents and dissuaded their fellow tidal cove on the Delaware into which they flowed. elites from regulating their industries. Philadelphians referred to the principal stream and cove A turning point came in 1748 when, after another together as “the Dock,” for one of their principal func- epidemic, the Pennsylvania Assembly appointed an ad tions. The Dock’s shores were the setting for the early hoc committee to recommend improvements in city’s mansions and public gathering spaces. As some Philadelphia’s sanitation. One member, Benjamin residents pointed out in 1700, the Dock was the city’s Franklin, was already known both for his innovative heart and “the Inducing Reason . . . to Settle the Town approaches to urban issues, as when he organized where it now is.” Philadelphia’s first fire company in 1736, and for his inter- Over time, the growth that made Philadelphia so est in the practical applications of technology. Com- successful rendered its environment, especially its water, bining these interests, Franklin advocated applying new dangerous to inhabitants’ health. Several leading indus- findings in hydrology (the study of water and its distribu- tries used water for transforming animals and grains into tion) and water-pumping technology to public sanitation. consumer products. Tanneries made leather by soaking Accordingly, the committee recommended building a cowhides several times in mixtures of water and acidic wall to keep the high tides of the Delaware River out of liquids, including sour milk and fermented rye, and with the Dock, widening the stream’s channel, and covering an alkaline solution of buttermilk and dung. Before peri- over a tributary that had become a “common sewer.” The odically cleaning their vats, tanners dumped residues plan was innovative not only because it was based on from these processes into the streets or into under- hydrology but also because it acknowledged the need ground pits from which they seeped into wells and for a public approach to sanitation problems. But once streams. Breweries and distilleries also used water- again, neither the city, the colony, nor private entrepre- based procedures and similarly discarded their waste, neurs would pay for the proposal. Many elites declined while slaughterhouses put dung, grease, fat, and other to assume the sense of civic responsibility that Franklin unwanted by-products into streets and streams. and his fellow advocates of Enlightenment sought to Individual residents exacerbated the problems by tossing inculcate. garbage into streets, using privies that polluted wells, Only in the 1760s, after both growth and pollution and leaving animal carcasses to rot in the open air. Most had accelerated, did Philadelphia begin to address the of the city’s sewers were open channels that frequently Dock’s problems effectively. In 1762 the Pennsylvania backed up, diverting the sewage to the streets. Buildings Assembly appointed a board to oversee the “Pitching and other obstructions caused stagnant pools to form in [sloping], Paving and Cleansing” of streets and walkways, streets, and when the polluted water did drain freely, it and the design, construction, and maintenance of sewers flowed into the Dock. and storm drains—all intended to prevent waste and

130 stagnant water from accumulating on land. In the next versy encouraged some to point out that improvements year, residents petitioned that the Dock itself be “cleared at the Dock had changed nothing in their own neighbor- out, planked at the bottom, and walled on each side” to hoods. Writing in a city newspaper in 1769, “Tom Trudge” maximize its flow and prevent it from flooding. The lamented the lot of “such poor fellows as I, who sup on a Pennsylvania Assembly responded by requiring adjoining cup of skim milk, etc., have a parcel of half naked chil- property owners to build “a good, strong, substantial wall dren about our doors, . . . whose wives must, at many of good, flat stone from the bottom of the said Dock,” and seasons of the Year, wade to the knees in carrying a loaf remove any “encroachments” that blocked drainage into of bread to bake, and near whose penurious doors the or on the streams. Finally, legislators had implemented dung-cart never comes, nor the sound of the paver will the kind of public, engineering-based solution that be heard for many ages.” Both public and private solu- Franklin had advocated two decades earlier. tions, Trudge and others asserted, favored the wealthy While some owners evaded their responsibility, oth- and ignored the less fortunate. Environmental controver- ers went even farther by also building an arch over the sy had once again shifted with the course of politics. But principal stretch of the Dock. Then they installed market the Revolution would postpone the search for solutions. stalls on the newly available surface. Once an open Philadelphia’s problems with polluted water persisted waterway used for transport and valued as a central until 1799, when the city undertook construction of the landmark, the Dock was now a completely enclosed, United States’ first municipal water system. engineered sewer. A new generation of entrepreneurs now dominated the neighborhood, catering to con- Focus Questions sumers who preferred a clean, attractive environment. • How did early manufacturing contribute to pollution By 1763, however, Philadelphia’s problem with sani- in Philadelphia? tation had grown well beyond the Dock. Thereafter, the • How did engineering provide a successful resolution growing controversy over British imperial policies divert- of sanitary problems at the Dock? ed official attention from public health problems. Yet by empowering poor and working people, that very contro-

131 132 CHAPTER 5 Roads to Revolution, 1750–1776

calling for Indians’ complete repudiation of European culture, material goods, and alliances. Meanwhile, other Native Americans hoped that the French would return so they could once again manipulate an imperial bal- ance of power. Political leaders such as Pontiac, an Ottawa Indian, drew on these sentiments to forge an explicitly anti-British movement, misleadingly called “Pontiac’s Rebellion.” During the spring and summer of 1763, they and their followers sacked eight British forts near the Great Lakes and besieged those at Pittsburgh and Detroit. But over the next three years, shortages of food and ammunition, a smallpox epidemic at Fort Pitt (triggered when British officers deliberately distributed infected blankets at a peace parley), and a recognition that the French would not return led the Indians to make peace with Britain. Although word of the uprising spread to Native Americans in the Southeast and Mississippi valley, the effective diplomacy of British agent John Stuart prevented violence from erupting in these areas. Despite the uprising’s failure, the Native Americans had not been decisively defeated. Hoping to conciliate the Indians and end the fighting, George III issued the Proclamation of 1763 asserting direct control of land transactions, settlement, trade, and other activities of non-Indians west of the Appalachian crest (see Map 5.2). The government’s goal was to restore order to the process of colonial expansion by replacing the authority of the various (and often competing) colonies with that of the crown. The proclamation recognized existing Indian land titles everywhere west of the “proclamation line” until such time as tribal governments agreed to indebtedness to Britain grew, some Americans began to cede their land through treaties. Although calming suspect the British of deliberately plotting to “enslave” Indian fears, the proclamation angered the colonies by the colonies. subordinating their western claims to imperial authority Victory over the French did not end the British need and by slowing expansion. for revenue, for the settlement of the war spurred new The uprising was also a factor in the British govern- Anglo-Indian conflicts that drove the British debt even ment’s decision that ten thousand soldiers should higher. With the French vanquished, Ohio and Great remain in North America to occupy its new territories Lakes Indians recognized that they could no longer play and to intimidate the Indian, French, and Spanish the two imperial rivals off against each other. Their fears inhabitants. The burden of maintaining control over the that the British would treat them as subjects rather than western territories would reach almost a half million as allies were confirmed when General Jeffrey Amherst, pounds a year, fully 6 percent of Britain’s peacetime Britain’s commander in North America, decided to cut budget. Britons considered it perfectly reasonable for expenses by refusing to distribute food, ammunition the colonists to help offset this expense, which the (needed for hunting), and other gifts. Moreover, squat- colonists, however, saw as none of their responsibility. ters from the colonies were moving onto Indian lands in Although the troops would help offset the colonies’ some areas and harassing the occupants, and many unfavorable balance of payments with Britain, they Native Americans feared that the British occupation was appeared to many Americans as a “standing army” that intended to support these incursions. in peacetime could only threaten their liberty. With the As tensions mounted, a Delaware religious prophet French menace to their security removed, increasing named Neolin attracted a large intertribal following by numbers of colonists saw westward expansion onto Imperial Revenues and Reorganization, 1760–1766 133

Indian lands as a way to prosperity, and they viewed expenses in North America, and thus end Britain’s long- British troops enforcing the Proclamation of 1763 as hin- standing policy of exempting colonial trade from rev- dering rather than enhancing that expansion. enue-raising measures. The Navigation Acts had not been designed to bring money into the British treasury but rather to benefit the imperial economy indirectly by The Writs of Assistance, 1760–1761 stimulating trade and protecting English manufacturers Even before the Seven Years’ War ended, British authori- from foreign competition. English importers paid the ties began attempts to halt American merchants from taxes that Parliament levied on colonial products enter- trading with the enemy in the French West Indies. In ing Britain and passed the cost on to consumers; the 1760 the royal governor of Massachusetts authorized taxes were not paid by American producers. So little rev- revenue officers to employ a document called a writ of enue did the Navigation Acts bring in (just £1,800 in assistance to seize illegally imported goods. The writ was 1763) that they did not even pay for the cost of their own a general search warrant that permitted customs offi- enforcement. cials to enter any ships or buildings where smuggled The amended the of 1733 goods might be hidden. Because the document required (see Chapter 4), which amounted to a tariff on French no evidence of probable cause for suspicion, many crit- West Indian molasses entering British North America. ics considered it unconstitutional. The writ of assistance But colonists simply continued to import the cheaper also threatened the traditional respect accorded the pri- French molasses, bribing customs officials into taking 1 vacy of a family’s place of residence, since most mer- 1/2 pence per gallon to look the other way when it was chants conducted business from their homes. unloaded. Aware of the widespread bribery, Parliament Writs of assistance proved a powerful weapon erroneously assumed that rum drinkers could stomach against smuggling. In quick reaction to the writs, mer- a three-pence duty per gallon. chants in Boston, virtually the smuggling capital of the New taxes were not the only feature of the Sugar Act colonies, hired lawyer James Otis to challenge the con- that American merchants found objectionable. The act stitutionality of these warrants. Arguing his case before also stipulated that colonists could export lumber, iron, the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1761, Otis pro- skins, and many other commodities to foreign countries claimed that “an act against the Constitution is void”— only if the shipments first landed in Britain. Previously, even one passed by Parliament. But the court, influ- American ships had taken these products directly to enced by the opinion of Chief Justice Thomas Dutch and German ports and returned with goods to sell Hutchinson, who noted the use of identical writs in to colonists. By channeling this trade through Britain, England, ruled against the Boston merchants. Parliament hoped that colonial shippers would pur- Despite losing the case, Otis expressed with chase more imperial wares for the American market, buy absolute clarity the fundamental conception of many, fewer goods from foreign competitors, and provide jobs both in Britain and in the colonies, of Parliament’s role for Englishmen. under the British constitution. The British constitution The Sugar Act also vastly complicated the require- was not a written document but instead a collection of ments for shipping colonial goods. A captain now had to customs and accepted principles that guaranteed cer- fill out a confusing series of documents to certify his tain rights to all citizens. Most British politicians trade as legal, and the absence of any of them left his assumed that Parliament’s laws were themselves part of entire cargo liable to seizure. The law’s petty regulations the constitution and hence that Parliament could alter made it virtually impossible for many colonial shippers the constitution at will. Like other colonists, Otis con- to avoid committing technical violations, even if tended that Parliament possessed no authority to violate they traded in the only manner possible under local any of the traditional “,” and he circumstances. asserted that there were limits “beyond which if Finally, the Sugar Act disregarded many traditional Parliaments go, their Acts bind not.” English protections for a fair trial. First, the law allowed customs officials to transfer smuggling cases from the colonial courts, in which juries decided the outcome, to The Sugar Act, 1764 vice-admiralty courts, where a judge alone gave the ver- In 1764, just three years after Otis’s court challenge, dict. Because the Sugar Act (until 1768) awarded vice- Parliament passed the Sugar Act. The measure’s goal was admiralty judges 5 percent of any confiscated cargo, to raise revenues that would help offset Britain’s military judges had a financial incentive to find defendants 134 CHAPTER 5 Roads to Revolution, 1750–1776

guilty. Second, until 1767 the law did not permit defen- Rather than pay the three-pence tax, Americans dants to be tried where their offense allegedly had taken continued smuggling molasses until 1766. Then, to dis- place (usually their home province) but required all courage smuggling, Britain lowered the duty to a cases to be heard in the vice-admiralty court at Halifax, penny—less than the customary bribe American ship- Nova Scotia. Third, the law reversed normal courtroom pers paid to get their cargoes past inspectors. The law procedures, which presumed innocence until guilt was thereafter raised about £30,000 annually in revenue. proved, by requiring the defendant to disprove the pros- Opposition to the Sugar Act remained fragmented ecution’s charge. and ineffective. The law’s burden fell overwhelmingly on The Sugar Act was no idle threat. British Prime Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania; other Minister George Grenville ordered the navy to enforce provinces had little interest in resisting a measure that the measure, and it did so vigorously. A Boston resident did not affect them directly. The Sugar Act’s immediate complained in 1764 that “no vessel hardly comes in or effect was minor, but it heightened some colonists’ goes out but they find some pretense to seize and detain awareness of the new direction of imperial policies and her.” That same year, Pennsylvania’s chief justice report- their implications. ed that customs officers were extorting fees from small boats carrying lumber across the Delaware River to The Stamp Act, 1765 Philadelphia from New Jersey and seemed likely “to destroy this little River-trade.” The revenue raised by the Sugar Act did little to ease Britain’s financial crisis. The national debt continued to rise, and the British public groaned under the weight of the second-highest tax rates in Europe. Particularly irri- tating to Britons was the fact that by 1765 their rates averaged 26 shillings per person, whereas the colonial tax burden varied from 1/2 to 1 1/2 shillings per inhabi- tant, or barely 2 to 6 percent of the British rate. Well aware of how lightly the colonists were taxed, Grenville thought that fairness demanded a larger contribution to the empire’s American expenses. To raise such revenues, Parliament passed the Stamp Act in March 1765. The law obliged colonists to purchase and use special stamped (watermarked) paper for newspapers, customs documents, various licenses, college diplomas, and legal forms used for recovering debts, buying land, and making wills. As with the Sugar Act, violators would face prosecution in vice-admiralty courts, without juries. The prime minister projected yearly revenues of £60,000 to £100,000, which would offset 12 to 20 percent of North American military expenses. Unlike the Sugar Act, which was an external tax levied on imports as they entered the colonies, the Stamp Act was an internal tax, or a duty levied directly on property, goods, and government services in the colonies. Whereas external taxes were intended to regu- late trade and fell mainly on merchants and ship cap- tains, internal taxes were designed to raise revenue for the crown and had far wider effects. In the case of the Stamp Act, anyone who made a will, transferred proper- ty, borrowed money, or bought playing cards or newspa- pers would pay the tax. To Grenville and his supporters, the new tax seemed a small price for the benefits of the empire, especially Imperial Revenues and Reorganization, 1760–1766 135 since Britons had been paying a similar tax since 1695. that no parts of His Majesty’s dominions can be taxed Nevertheless, some in England, most notably William without consent: that every part has a right to be repre- Pitt, objected in principle to Britain’s levying an internal sented in the supreme or some subordinate legislature.” tax on the colonies. They emphasized that the colonists In essence, the colonists assumed that the empire was a had never been subject to British revenue bills and loose federation in which their legislatures possessed noted that they taxed themselves through their own considerable autonomy, rather than an extended nation elected assemblies. governed directly from London. Grenville and his followers agreed that Parliament could not tax any British subjects unless they enjoyed Resisting the Stamp Act, 1765–1766 representation in that body. But they contended that Americans shared the same status as the majority of Unlike the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act generated a political British adult males who either lacked sufficient property storm that rumbled through all the colonies in 1765. To to vote or lived in large cities that had no seats in many colonists Parliament’s passage of the act demon- Parliament. Such people, they maintained, were “virtu- strated both its indifference to their interests and the ally” represented in Parliament. The theory of virtual shallowness of the theory of virtual representation. representation held that every member of Parliament Colonial agents in London had lobbied against passage stood above the narrow interests of his constituents and of the law, and provincial legislatures had sent petitions considered the welfare of all subjects when deciding warning against passage. Parliament had dismissed the issues. By definition, then, British subjects, including petitions without a hearing. Parliament “must have colonists, were not represented by particular individuals thought us Americans all a parcel of Apes and very tame but by all members of Parliament. Apes too,” concluded Christopher Gadsden of South Grenville and his supporters also denied that the Carolina, “or they would have never ventured on such a colonists were entitled to any exemption from British hateful, baneful experiment.” taxation because they elected their own assemblies. In late May 1765, , a twenty-nine-year- These legislative bodies, they alleged, were no different old Virginia lawyer and planter with a talent for fiery ora- from English or Scottish town councils, whose local pow- tory, dramatically conveyed the rising spirit of resist- ers to pass laws and taxes did not nullify Parliament’s ance. Henry urged the Virginia House of Burgesses to authority over them. Accordingly, colonial assemblies adopt several strongly worded resolutions denying were an adaptation to unique American circumstances Parliament’s power to tax the colonies. In the debate and possessed no more power than Parliament allowed over the resolutions, Henry reportedly stated that “he them to exercise. But Grenville’s position clashed directly did not doubt but some good American would stand up with the stance of many colonists who had been arguing in favor of his country.” Viewing such language as trea- for several decades that their assemblies exercised leg- sonous, the Assembly passed only the weakest four of islative powers equivalent to those of the House of Henry’s seven resolutions. Garbled newspaper accounts Commons in Great Britain (see Chapter 4). of Henry’s resolutions and the debates were published in Many colonists felt that the Stamp Act forced them other colonies, and by year’s end seven other assemblies either to confront the issue of parliamentary taxation had passed resolutions against the act. As in Virginia, the head-on or to surrender any claim to meaningful rights resolutions were grounded in constitutional arguments of self-government. However much they might admire and avoided Henry’s inflammatory language. and respect Parliament, few colonists imagined that it Henry’s words resonated more loudly outside elite represented them. They accepted the theory of virtual political circles, particularly in Boston. There, in late representation as valid for England and Scotland but summer, a group of mostly middle-class artisans and denied that it could be extended to the colonies. Instead, small business owners joined together as the Loyal Nine they argued, they enjoyed a substantial measure of self- to fight the Stamp Act. They recognized that the stamp governance similar to that of Ireland, whose Parliament distributors, who alone could accept money for water- alone could tax its people but could not interfere with marked paper, were the law’s weak link. If the public laws, like the Navigation Acts, passed by the British could pressure them into resigning before taxes became Parliament. In a speech before the Boston town meeting due on November 1, the Stamp Act would become opposing the Sugar Act, James Otis had expressed inoperable. Americans’ basic argument: “that by [the British] It was no accident that Boston set the pace in Constitution, every man in the dominions is a free man: opposing Parliament. A large proportion of Bostonians 136 CHAPTER 5 Roads to Revolution, 1750–1776

lived by shipbuilding, maritime trade, and distilling, and new building of Oliver’s at the dock. Thereafter, the Loyal in 1765 they were not living well. In part they could Nine withdrew and the crowd continued on its own. The blame British policies for their misfortune. No other port men surged toward Oliver’s house, where they beheaded suffered so much from the Sugar Act’s trade restrictions. his effigy and “stamped” it to pieces. The crowd then The law burdened rum producers with a heavy tax on shattered the windows of his home, smashed his furni- molasses, dried up a flourishing import trade in ture, and even tore out the paneling. When Lieutenant Portuguese wines, and prohibited the direct export of Governor Hutchinson and the sheriff tried to disperse many New England products to profitable overseas the crowd, they were driven off under a barrage of rocks. markets. Surveying his devastated home the next morning, Oliver But Boston’s misery was largely rooted in older announced his resignation. problems. Even before the Seven Years War, its ship- Bitterness against the Stamp Act unleashed sponta- building industry had lost significant ground to New neous, contagious violence. Twelve days after the first York and Philadelphia, and the output of its rum Boston riot, Bostonians demolished the elegant home of and sugar producers had fallen by half in just a Thomas Hutchinson. This attack occurred in part decade. British impressment (forced recruitment) of because smugglers held grudges against Hutchinson for Massachusetts fishermen for naval service had under- certain of his decisions as chief justice and also because mined the fishing industry. The resulting unemploy- many financially pinched citizens saw him as a symbol ment led to increased taxes for poor-relief. The taxes, of the royal policies crippling Boston’s already troubled along with a shrinking number of customers, drove economy and their own livelihoods. In their view, many marginal artisans out of business and into the wealthy officials “rioted in luxury,” with homes and ranks of the poor. Other Bostonians, while remaining fancy furnishings that cost hundreds of times the annual employed or in business, struggled in the face of rising incomes of most Boston workingmen. They were also prices for basic necessities as well as taxes. To com- reacting to Hutchinson’s efforts to stop the destruction pound its misery, the city still struggled to recover from a of his brother-in-law ’s house. Ironically, great fire in 1760 that had burned 176 warehouses and Hutchinson privately opposed the Stamp Act. left every tenth family homeless. Meanwhile, groups similar to the Loyal Nine calling Widespread economic distress produced an explo- themselves were forming throughout the sive situation in Boston. Already resentful of an elite colonies. After the assault on Hutchinson’s mansion and whose fortunes had risen spectacularly while their own an even more violent incident in Newport, Rhode Island, had foundered, many blamed British officials and poli- the leaders of the Sons of Liberty sought to prevent more cies for the town’s hard times. The crisis was sharpened such outbreaks. They recognized that people in the because poor and working-class Bostonians were accus- crowds were casting aside their customary deference tomed to forming large crowds to engage in pointed toward their social “superiors,” a development that political expression. The high point of each year was could broaden to include all elites if not carefully con- November 5, Pope’s Day, when thousands gathered to tained. Fearful of alienating wealthy opponents of the commemorate the failure of a Catholic plot in England Stamp Act, the Sons of Liberty focused their actions in 1605 to blow up Parliament and kill King James I. On strictly against property and invariably left avenues of that day each year, crowds from the North End and the escape for their victims. Especially fearful that a royal South End customarily burned gigantic effigies of the soldier or revenue officer might be shot or killed, they pope as well as of local political leaders and other elite forbade their followers to carry weapons, even when fac- figures, and generally satirized the behavior of the “bet- ing armed adversaries. Realizing the value of martyrs, ter sort.” they resolved that the only lives lost over the issue of In the aftermath of the Stamp Act, Boston’s crowds British taxation would come from their own ranks. aimed their traditional forms of protest more directly In October 1765 representatives of nine colonial and forcefully against imperial officials. The morning of assemblies met in New York City in the so-called Stamp August 14 found a likeness of Boston’s stamp distributor, Act Congress. The session was remarkable for the Andrew Oliver, swinging from a tree guarded by a men- colonies’ agreement on and bold articulation of the gen- acing crowd. Oliver apparently did not realize that the eral principle that Parliament lacked authority to levy Loyal Nine were warning him to resign immediately, so taxes outside Great Britain and to deny any person a jury at dusk several hundred Bostonians, led by a South End trial. Only once before had a truly intercolonial meeting shoemaker named Ebenezer MacIntosh, demolished a taken place—the Albany Congress in 1754—and its plea Imperial Revenues and Reorganization, 1760–1766 137 for unity had fallen on deaf ears. In 1765 the colonial steadfast opponent of the Stamp Act, boldly denounced response was entirely different. “The Ministry never all efforts to tax the colonies, declaring, “I rejoice that imagined we could or would so generally unite in oppo- America has resisted.” Parliamentary support for repeal sition to their measures,” wrote a Connecticut delegate thereafter grew, though only as a matter of practicality, to the congress, “nor I confess till I saw the Experiment not as a surrender of principle. In March 1766 made did I.” Parliament revoked the Stamp Act, but only in conjunc- By late 1765 most stamp distributors had resigned tion with passage of the , which affirmed or fled, and without the watermarked paper required by parliamentary power to legislate for the colonies “in all law, most royal customs officials and court officers were cases whatsoever.” refusing to perform their duties. In response, legislators Because the Declaratory Act was written in general compelled the reluctant officials to resume operation by language, Americans interpreted its meaning to their threatening to withhold their pay. At the same time, own advantage. Most colonial political leaders recog- merchants obtained sailing clearances by insisting that nized that the law was modeled after an earlier statute of they would sue if cargoes spoiled while delayed in port. 1719 regarding Ireland, which was considered exempt By late December the courts and harbors of almost every from British taxation. The measure therefore seemed no colony were again functioning. more than a parliamentary exercise in saving face to Thus colonial elites moved to keep an explosive sit- compensate for the Stamp Act’s repeal, and Americans uation from getting out of hand by taking over leader- ignored it. The House of Commons, however, intended ship of local Sons of Liberty groups, by coordinating that the colonists take the Declaratory Act literally to protest through the , and by having mean that they could not claim exemption from any colonial legislatures restore normal business. Elite lead- parliamentary statute, including a tax law. The Stamp ers feared that chaos could break out, particularly if Act crisis thus ended in a fundamental disagreement British troops landed to enforce the Stamp Act. An influ- between Britain and America over the colonists’ political ential Pennsylvanian, , summed up how rights. respectable gentlemen envisioned the dire conse- Although the Stamp Act crisis had not resolved the quences of revolutionary turmoil: “a multitude of underlying philosophical differences between Britain Commonwealths, Crimes, and Calamities, Centuries of and America, most colonists eagerly put the events of mutual jealousies, Hatreds, Wars of Devastation, till at 1765 behind them, and they showered both king and last the exhausted provinces shall sink into savagery Parliament with loyal statements of gratitude for the under the yoke of some fortunate Conqueror.” Stamp Act’s repeal. The Sons of Liberty disbanded. Still To force the Stamp Act’s repeal, New York’s mer- possessing a deep emotional loyalty to “Old England,” chants agreed on October 31, 1765, to boycott all British Anglo-Americans concluded with relief that their active goods, and businessmen in other cities soon followed resistance to the law had slapped Britain’s leaders back their example. Because America